Chapter 19.40
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
Sections:
19.40.020 List of essential public facilities.
19.40.040 Essential public facilities review process.
19.40.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a process to site necessary public uses that may otherwise be difficult to site. This process involves the community and identifies and minimizes adverse impacts. Essential public facilities are defined in Chapter 19.10 UPMC, Definitions. Essential public facilities which meet the definition but are not listed in Chapter 19.25 UPMC shall also be reviewed according to the essential public facility review process.
(Ord. 443 § 1 (Exh. A), 2005; Ord. 394 § 1, 2003; Ord. 307 § 2, 2001).
19.40.020 List of essential public facilities.
A use or facility may be added to the list of essential public facilities based on one of the following criteria:
A. The use meets the definition of an essential public facility in RCW 36.70A.200; and
B. The use is identified on the State list of essential public facilities maintained by the State of Washington Office of Financial Management.
(Ord. 741 § 1 (Exh. G), 2020; Ord. 443 § 1 (Exh. A), 2005; Ord. 394 § 1, 2003; Ord. 307 § 2, 2001).
19.40.030 Applicability.
A. Listed Essential Public Facilities. All listed essential public facilities shall be reviewed through the essential public facility review process.
B. Unlisted Facilities. The director shall make a determination that a facility be reviewed pursuant to this section based on the following criteria:
1. The facility is a type difficult to site because of one of the following:
a. The facility needs a type of site of which there are few sites;
b. The facility can locate only near another public facility;
c. The facility has or is generally perceived by the public to have significant adverse impacts that make it difficult to site;
d. The facility is of a type that has been difficult to site in the past;
e. It is likely that the facility will be difficult to site; or
f. There is a need for the facility and University Place is in the facility service area.
(Ord. 443 § 1 (Exh. A), 2005; Ord. 423 § 62, 2004; Ord. 394 § 1, 2003; Ord. 307 § 2, 2001).
19.40.040 Essential public facilities review process.
A. Agencies planning on siting essential public facilities shall submit an application to the department. The application shall be on a form provided by the city and shall be accompanied by the following documents and information as are determined to be necessary by the director.
B. Essential public facilities shall be reviewed as follows:
1. Essential public facilities shall require a conditional use permit.
2. If an essential public facility is not listed within the zoning district, then the use shall be limited to the Mixed Use – Urban/Industrial zone or Chambers Creek Properties. Essential public facilities that are not expressly listed in a zoning district are subject to either:
a. Conditional use permit process; and
b. Comprehensive plan/rezone process.
3. In addition to a conditional use permit, all essential public facilities shall be subject to review in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
C. An applicant may have one or more alternative sites considered during the same process.
D. The director has the authority to require the consideration of sites outside of the city of University Place. Alternative sites shall cover the service area of the proposed essential public facility.
E. An amplified public involvement process shall be required. The purpose of the public involvement process is to involve affected persons of likely and foreseeable impacts if the involvement process has the potential to lead to more appropriate design/location or if that process could lead to development of incentives to address modifications to the facility which would make the siting of that facility more acceptable.
F. The applicant shall propose an acceptable public involvement process to be reviewed and approved by the director.
G. Public involvement activities shall be conducted and paid for by the applicant.
H. The public involvement process shall be initiated by the applicant as early as possible.
I. The director may require a multidisciplinary review process if the facility serves a regional, countywide, statewide, or national need.
J. An analysis of the facility’s impact on city finances shall be undertaken. Mitigation of adverse financial impacts shall be required.
K. The following criteria shall be used to make a determination on the application:
1. The federal, state, regional, or local agency (applicant) shall provide a justifiable need for the essential public facility and for its location within the city of University Place.
2. The impact of the facility on the surrounding uses and environment, the city and, if applicable, the region.
3. Whether the design of the facility or the operation of the facility can be conditioned, or the impacts otherwise mitigated, to make the facility compatible with the affected area and the environment.
4. Whether the factors that make the facility difficult to site can be modified to increase the range of available sites or to minimize impacts in affected areas and the environment.
5. Whether the proposed essential public facility is consistent with the city of University Place comprehensive plan.
6. If a variance is requested, the proposal shall also comply with the variance criteria.
7. Essential public facilities shall also comply with all other applicable state siting and permitting requirements.
(Ord. 443 § 1 (Exh. A), 2005; Ord. 423 § 63, 2004; Ord. 394 § 1, 2003; Ord. 307 § 2, 2001).
19.40.050 Burden of proof.
The applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed use meets all criteria set forth in UPMC 19.40.040(K).
(Ord. 443 § 1 (Exh. A), 2005; Ord. 394 § 1, 2003).
19.40.060 Decision.
The Director or Hearings Examiner may approve an application for an essential public facility, approve with conditions or require modification of the proposal to comply with specified requirements or local conditions. The Director may deny an application for an essential public facility if the placement of the use would be unreasonably incompatible with the surrounding area or incapable of meeting the criteria required for approval or with specific standards set forth in this code.
(Ord. 443 § 1 (Exh. A), 2005; Ord. 394 § 1, 2003; Ord. 307 § 2, 2001).